And the end of the Tale, is the widow’s veil, that she got from the Russian steppes. Bertold Brecht from What was sent to the soldier’s wife?

Speaking today, the Prime Minster stated that the UK has to get into a position to fight a war with Russia. It is a premise of the “Defence” Review that such a threat exists.

However, last week’s Observer published a graphic that shows the actual balance of forces now in Europe, between the European NATO powers and Russia. This reflects a level of spending that is three and half times the Russian level.

This is it. Have a look at this and ask yourself, who is threatening who here?

Then consider that the proposed 10 fold increase in lethality of the UK armed forces is part of a Europe wide drive to get the imbalance of spending between Euro NATO and Russia up to 10 or 11 to 1. So, this is not about “defence”. It is about being in a position to launch a war. Our current crop of lightweight leaders don’t seem to have studied much History. Invasions of Russia do not go well. As Charles XII, or Napoleon Bonaparte, and Adolf Hitler found out.

Given that Russia is a nuclear power with a nuclear war doctrine that would use nuclear weapons in the face of an existential threat to the country, the suicidal futlity of this drive boggles the mind. Needless to say, NONE of the interveiwers on the Radio or TV today have posed any questions of this sort. In fact, the Veterans Minister told the BBC Interviewer on PM this evening that it would be part of his job to “tell the truth”, which he interpreted as telling a story that projects “the national interest”. So, don’t ask the awkward questions. Close them down. Like we have now, but more so.

Four short points.

1. The Review states that “you can’t defend on the goal line”. What they mean by this is that the UK armed forces would be fighting wars in other countries – as they have done regularly and consistently since WW2. Nothing new there. But there is a particular emphasis on Russia. How they envisage fighting even a conventional war with Russia without utter devastation for any country unfortunate enough to be on the front line, or within reach of even conventional missiles, isn’t elaborated on. We just get the old chestnut that to defend peace we have to be able to fight and win a war. That’s what everyone said in the run up to 1914, and look how well that turned out.
2. The Review envisages mobilising the whole population for war readiness. That means a huge propaganda effort directed at civil society and through the school curriculum, presumably boosting cadets corps as part of the process, and weeding out dissent, either through Prevent or something more bespoke. A robust resistance to this from educators in defence of peace and sanity will be essential. As the Minister on PM said, this will be what we did “in the Cold War”. Similar conscientious objection will be needed, as it was then, to attempts to impose a stifling conformity, and any of the rituals deployed to shore that up.
3. Complaints have been made in the press that the Armed Forces are losing people faster than they can recruit them, “even though the government has pledged to provide peacekeepers for Ukraine”. Has it not occured to them that this might be one of the reasons why more peopple are leaving than joining?
4. The government is keen to talk about “military Keynesianism” rebuilding the economy, and some unions will go along with that on a “British Bombs for British Workers” line. This is nonsense. Military investment is, hopefully, wasted. The weaponry produced doesn’t build anything. Quite the reverse if used. This is unlike investment in, say, Health or Green transition, both of which produce much greater returns in value added and job creation. Explored in depth here. So, this is a dead end, in both respects.

The bottom line is that this is a political and military posture of choice. Impoverishing our society to ramp up arms spending, some of which will be exported to allies like Israel or Saudi Arabia to pursue genocidal attacks on Gaza or Yemen, in pursuit of a confrontation with Russia that will kill all of us if it follows its own impetus to full scale war, is not inevitable, not an imperative. Seeking a peaceful resolution to the Ukraine war and an ongoing modus vivendi with Russia that cools off military confrontation across the whole of Eurasia is an alternative that the whole Left should fight for. Some of the framework for this is explored in the Alternative Defence Review produced by CND and the RMT.

Please note. My Blogs are banned of Facebook because they say they “look like spam”. This has somewhat reduced their reach. If you think the arguments are worth passing on, and want to help break the ideological blockade embodied in this sort of action, please pass it on to anyone who you think might find it interesting or useful.